Posted on 01/24/2006 4:19:22 PM PST by Aetius
Bush has all the credibility on immigration that Clinton has on chastity.
Well said.
Who says they have to be located and rounded up?
That's the problem with Bush's (and all Republipuke/Democrap) solutions. They are proposed specifically because they won't work.
You don't go after the illegals. You go after the employers who hire the illegals.
Coddling criminals is what liberal Democraps do. Are you a liberal Democrap?
If Bush were to actually follow the law as written (what a concept!), then companies who hire illegals would be on the hook for $10,000 fine per person per instance. (Multiply that times 10-20 million)
Start levying those types of fines, and the companies would not be able to divest their rolls quickly enough. And with no jobs available, the illegals would flood back across the border.
"Welcome to our new citizens" (who, btw, for the most part, will make very good ones)
Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but if they're here illegally, then they've already proven they won't make good citizens because they do not respect our laws.
And then there's the Social Security Totalization Agreement Bush signed with Mexico that opens up our Social Security system to illegal aliens.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Mexican illegal alien can:
Apply for and receive benefits after having worked (illegally) for a minimum of 6 quarters (18 months). US citizens (read: you and me) have to work for a minimum of 40 quarters (10 years) before we're eligible to apply.
Apply for and receive benefits for his Mexican National wife and Mexican National children even if the wife and children have never stepped foot in the USA.
And the Mexican illegal alien can have these benefit checks mailed to him, at home, in Mexico.
So, you just go on thinking what the Republipuke and Democrap politicians want you to think and parroting what they want you to say, but don't think that everyone is buying what you and your puppetmasters are selling.
Not really. I was replying to the article re: Bush, but will allow that I'm against ANY guest-worker plan until the borders are under control and the Anchor Baby question is addressed. Tancredo's at least does that.
The big push should be for the corrupt oligarchy that rules Mexico to reform. However, that's even a bigger no-no than addressing the illegal alien invasion. In the mean time we emulate the Dutch Boy plugging fingers in a leaky dike.
This how it usually goes Ben. You make some statement you know not to be true, get corrected, then sidestep to another subject. You never disappoint.
We HAVE discussed Tancredo's plan on at least one occasion. Here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1472967/posts?page=160#160
As far as "the equal protection clause", I'm afraid we will not agree again. If the 14th amendment were interpreted as it was intended to be, we would not have such a thing as anchor babies. Enlighten yourself here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563956/posts?page=150#125
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
As for the mexican reforms, it is easy to see what hasn't been done and what has been done.
We can even rank them. Which reform do you think is most important for Mexico?
Much like you and yours.
If you will take the time to go back and read my response in both instances, the response is the same.
Making compliance harder, more detrimental, more stupid is not the answer. It has to be made easier.
Do you want your guest worker reg to be one page long or 300 pages long? Do you want your IRS reg to be one page long or 300 pages long.
Now I know that you think that Tancredo has the bill right, but have you've ever wondered why Senators Vitter or Coburn didn't introduce Tanc's bill into the Senate. After all, they are former menbers of Tanc's immigration caucus.
" Do you want your guest worker reg to be one page long or 300 pages long? "
I don't want one at all. But if we have one, it should be Tancredos. As far as page count, it's not how many, it's what is contained in those pages that matters.
But if fewer pages = better plan in your book, looky here.
John McCain/Teddy Kennedy Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, 85 pages.
John Cornyn/Jon Kyl, the Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act, also 85 pages.
Tom Tancredo, REAL GUEST Act, 49 pages.
You can read Tanc's bill, can you imagine the difficuty the bureacracy would interpreting what he is saying much less writing a reg around it. Impossible.
Face reality, Tanc had years to write a bill but he never would. In fact, the only reason he wrote this was Kyl and Cornyn were sitting down on his position and he to squirm away a the last minute and try to be something different.
The most ludicrous part of his bill is the Theory of Attrition. I'm sure that would withstand a court challenge. Not.
Here's a link to his bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03333:
perhaps you can direct me to the portion that covers this "Theory of Attrition". Or is that part going to be in the regulation? LOL!
You never did answer my question, why wasn't his bill introduced into the senate?
Says it all.
You know which side I mean don't you?
The quisling side.
Your side.
Enjoy your Guest Worker legislation.
There have been articles written that claim the enforcement provisions in Title II are based on "Tancredo's concept of attrition." But there is no reference to the concept in the bill itself.
And yes, many would leave on their own.
" You never did answer my question, why wasn't his bill introduced into the senate?"
Why don't we do this the easy way? Just let me in on the secret reason.
Even quislings should be punctual.
"Forget guest workers, if we need new americans - increase legal immigration for those who are law abiding, and want to come here."
But Mexico has already exceeded it's quota for the next couple of decades, so they get Zero new immigration visa's!
Every country that wants to send people here should have their legal immigration visa allocation reduced by 2X or 3X the number of illegals already here.
That way those who really want to get here, legally, will have a stake in reducing the number of illegals from their country.
Personally, I think we need a ten year moratorium on ALL immigration, from anywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.